issue17 超越自我小组第一次作业

vryUID: 2288609

ISSUE17   There are two types of laws: just and unjust. Every individual in a society has a responsibility to obey just laws and, even more importantly, to disobey and resist unjust laws.


The assertion of the topic gives a classification of law and declaims what we should do towards the two kinds of laws. I don’t agree with it. The speaker has some misunderstanding of the function of laws and the rights and duties of the individuals that be regulated by them.

Justice, as one of the basic values of laws, has its unique characters. Justice roughly means that people should be treated equally, possess the same rights and hold the same duties in the same situation. It is justice that makes the private laws possible and enable people to have contracts voluntarily and successfully. Without justice, laws cannot be trusted or relied on on the grounds that on that occasion people would even loss the belief in the protection of laws to them from the unexpected dangerous future. From this point, it is reasonable for the speaker to put laws into two types. As is implied that unjust laws is bad laws, which apparently lacks the basic value of laws and wouldn't gain acceptance from the mass. With such classification, the speaker provides a way to find out laws that should be disobeyed and resisted for every individual. However, it is more apparent than real.

Individuals lacks the knowledge and authority to define which law is just or unjust as to take spontaneous different actions towards such two kinds of laws. Individual certainly can has different views and understanding towards a specific article of law, but the regulation by which won't be changed by the different attitude towards them. When a specific article of law is argued unjust, mostly it is because of the situation of arguer is felt unfavorable. However, there are different types and reasons of justice. Let's see the example of taxing. The poor may complain if the volume of tax on all of the people is the same on the grounds that the poor may even can't afford what is little for the rich guys. There’s no possibility for the poor to tell this way of taxing to be just though the amount of tax to everyone is the same. The rich may reject to be taxed according to the salary, for example, of each one, since the rich may need to pay many more times than others, which may seemed unjust. So, thousands of different people may,if they only consider of themselves, has thousands of kinds of attitudes towards one law. However, there can only be one end of each case, which may not satisfy everyone involve. What's more, there's not only one value or essential destination of law, and the number is supposed to be many, such as human rights, stability, liberty, etc. There should be a balance of them.

Moreover, do individual has the responsibility or rights to obey or resist so-called unjust laws? Some may assert that the source of the power of laws is the authorization from the people. That is true. but a law should be obeyed, whatever it is defined, as long as it is still a law. If people have the rights to obey or resist, there would exist many different versions of law at the same time, which would in turn harm the so-call value of justice because people of different version are not actually treated under the same law, or another word "just". What's worse, if every individual do such things without control, the law system will has no efficacy or will be even useless, as the unique standards for the whole society are separated into pieces.

However, there should be a way for the individuals to appeal against laws that they consider unjust. There should be an authorized institution to take consideration of the appeal and make the right choice, and thus establish new law, edit the exist ones or abandon some. The action should follow strict and efficient procedure to make sure that the appeals are treated justly.

To conclude, unjust laws are exist and should be treated in a programmed and proper way.



写完不想改了~~~ 欢迎拍砖~~~

hyukiezhuUID: 2291070

ISSUE17   There are two types of laws: just and unjust. Every individual in a society has a responsibility to obey just laws and, even more importantly, to disobey and resist unjust laws.


The assertion of the topic gives a classification of law（s） and declaims what we should do towards the two kinds of laws. I don’t agree with it. The speaker has some misunderstanding of the function of laws and the rights and duties of the individuals that be regulated by them.

Justice, as one of the basic values of laws, has its unique characters. Justice roughly means that people should be treated equally, possess the same rights and hold the same duties in the same situation. It is justice that makes the private laws possible and enable people to have contracts voluntarily and successfully（that后面的从句可以没有主语么？）. Without justice, laws cannot be trusted or relied on on the grounds that on that occasion people would even loss the belief in the protection of laws to them from the unexpected dangerous future（好句，我要背下来）. From this point, it is reasonable for the speaker to put laws into two types. As is implied that unjust laws is bad laws, which apparently lacks the basic value of laws and wouldn't gain acceptance from the mass（public好点吧mass好像是大混乱的意思）. With such classification, the speaker provides a way to find out laws that should be disobeyed and resisted for every individual. However, it is more apparent than real.

Individuals lacks the knowledge and authority to define which law is just or unjust as to take spontaneous different actions towards such two kinds of laws（好句，我要背下来）. Individual certainly can has（have） different views and understanding towards a specific article of law, but the regulation by which won't be changed by the different attitude towards them. When a specific article of law is argued (of) unjust, mostly it is because of the situation of (the) arguer is felt unfavorable. However, there are different types and reasons of justice. Let's see the example of taxing. The poor may complain if the volume of tax on all of the people is the same on the grounds that the poor may even can't afford what is little for the rich guys. There’s no possibility for the poor to tell this way of taxing to be just though the amount of tax to everyone is the same. The rich may reject to be taxed according to the salary, for example, of each one, since the rich may need to pay many more times than others, which may seemed unjust. So, thousands of different people may, if they only consider of themselves, has thousands of kinds of attitudes towards one law. However, there can only be one end of each case, which may not satisfy everyone involve. What's more, there's not only one value or essential destination of law, and the number is supposed to be many, such as human rights, stability, liberty, etc. There should be a balance of them.

Moreover, do individual has the responsibility or rights to obey or resist so-called unjust laws? Some may assert that the source of the power of laws is the authorization from the people. That is true. but a law should be obeyed, whatever it is defined, as long as it is still a law. If people have the rights to obey or resist, there would exist many different versions of law at the same time, which would in turn harm the so-call value of justice because people of different version are not actually treated under the same law, or another word "just". What's worse, if every individual do such things without control, the law system will has no efficacy or will be even useless, as the unique standards for the whole society are separated into pieces.

However, there should be a way for the individuals to appeal against laws that they consider unjust. There should be an authorized institution to take consideration of the appeal and make the right choice, and thus establish new law, edit the exist ones or abandon some. The action should follow strict and efficient procedure to make sure that the appeals are treated justly.

To conclude, unjust laws are exist and should be treated in a programmed and proper way.

1、        结尾是不是短点了，前面写的那么好应该总结一下吧？
2、        2，3段写得很充分，例子和理论逻辑性都跟强，第4短我觉得也蛮重要的，或许是论题中的症结所在是不是应该调整一下文章的论证侧重点。
3、        我这哪是修改啊，就是欣赏加学习么。写得好好，都没啥可改的，你就练吧，到时候别怯场就完了，哈哈。

hyukiezhuUID: 2291070

虎虎写得，太好了~~！！！看得赏心悦目~~以后就算轮不到改虎的我也回过来看，能学不少东西~~我的人品好，命好，第一天就找到个范文代表。

hermituforestUID: 2354296

欣赏下~~

cartographer08UID: 2523568

过来学习一下:)